Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript is poorly structured and written. Existing state-of-the-art is not adequately described. The main weakness of the manuscript is that the contributions of the paper are not clearly related to the existing state-of-the-art. It is to clear in which way the paper's contributions improves the existing state-of-the-art. The idea behind the paper is to certain extant original therefore my suggestion to the editor is to reconsider the manuscript for publication after major modifications. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of the English language could be improved.

Author Response

Comment 1: In my opinion, the manuscript is poorly structured and written. Existing state-of-the-art is not adequately described. The main weakness of the manuscript is that the contributions of the paper are not clearly related to the existing state-of-the-art. It is to clear in which way the paper's contributions improves the existing state-of-the-art. The idea behind the paper is to certain extant original therefore my suggestion to the editor is to reconsider the manuscript for publication after major modifications. 

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating our work. Your insights have been instrumental in refining and improving the quality of our paper.

Below, you will find a summary of the modifications made in response to your comments:

• Alignment with State of the Art: We have expanded and enriched this section to better portray other valuable contributions, such as the various applications for real-time monitoring using WAMS and data management, which align with the results of our work. These additions can be found at the end of Section 1 – Introduction.
• Abstract and Conclusions: We have rewritten these sections to more effectively highlight the contributions of our work.
• General Improvements: We have made several general modifications throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and improve the quality of the English.
• Aligning with the Sustainability Journal: We have added relevant content to the abstract, keywords, and introduction sections to emphasize how this paper aligns with sustainable power systems.

Comment 2: Quality of the English language could be improved.

Response 2: We have made several modifications throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and improve the quality of the English.

The most relevant sections added during this review are highlighted in the corrected article document in .pdf.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution and application of the Wide Area Monitoring System (WAMS) in Colombia’s power grid. It details the technical implementation of real-time monitoring tools and the integration of high-speed big data platforms, addressing challenges posed by low-inertia power systems. While the paper effectively highlights practical applications and system architecture, it lacks theoretical depth, experimental validation, and comparisons, limiting its academic and technical contribution.

1.The Abstract and Conclusion sections are verbose and do not adequately highlight the core contributions of the paper.

2. Lack of Theoretical Depth: No new theories or models are introduced, and the technical innovations are primarily practical rather than theoretical.

3.The paper does not provide sufficient experimental or field data to validate the performance of the proposed tools.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English may require assistance from native English speakers to improve.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution and application of the Wide Area Monitoring System (WAMS) in Colombia’s power grid. It details the technical implementation of real-time monitoring tools and the integration of high-speed big data platforms, addressing challenges posed by low-inertia power systems. While the paper effectively highlights practical applications and system architecture, it lacks theoretical depth, experimental validation, and comparisons, limiting its academic and technical contribution.

Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating our work. Your insights have been instrumental in refining and improving the quality of our paper.

Below, you will find a summary of the modifications made in response to your comments.

Comment 2: The Abstract and Conclusion sections are verbose and do not adequately highlight the core contributions of the paper.

Response 2: We have rewritten these sections to more effectively highlight the contributions of our work.

Comment 3: Lack of Theoretical Depth: No new theories or models are introduced, and the technical innovations are primarily practical rather than theoretical.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comments. We appreciate your recognition of the practical and industry-based contributions of our work. In addition to these practical applications, our research also introduces new technological advances. Specifically, we have developed a real-time monitoring system for Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF) using a configured model. This innovation represents a significant step forward in the field and enhances the overall impact of our contributions. Furthermore, we have included detailed descriptions of the real-world implementation of the applications presented in our work. These practical insights are often not found in literature, making this an important advancement in the state of the art for applied engineering.

 

Comment 4: The paper does not provide sufficient experimental or field data to validate the performance of the proposed tools.

Response 4: The visualizations and data presented to explain each of the applications were captured during the actual operation of the Colombian electrical system. They reflect the colorimetry conditions and alerts that were active at the time, providing a clear demonstration of the applications currently in use in the control room. All the examples shown in the paper use real-world data from the PMUs installed in the Colombian power system. We have added this note in Section 5. Additionally, we have detailed how each application is used in the control center and how decision-making and improvements in power system performance can be achieved using the developed applications. These improvements are detailed in each subsection of Section 5.

Comment 5: English may require assistance from native English speakers to improve

Response 5: We have also made several modifications throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and improve the quality of the English.

The most relevant sections added during this review are highlighted in the corrected article document in .pdf.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article mainly introduces the evolution of real-time dynamic monitoring of Colombia's national power grid, through the use of wide area monitoring systems and high-speed big data analysis. The article first outlines the importance of continuous improvement and updating of network monitoring capabilities and protection schemes in power system operation, and then introduces the process of Colombia improving grid monitoring capabilities by introducing synchronous phasor measurement technology. The article also emphasizes inherent factors such as power system flexibility, frequency stability, and system inertia, as well as new challenges brought about by environmental issues and the introduction of variable resource generation technology. The article finally discusses how to maintain the integrity of the power system by improving its monitoring and protection schemes.

Author Response

Comment 1: This article mainly introduces the evolution of real-time dynamic monitoring of Colombia's national power grid, through the use of wide area monitoring systems and high-speed big data analysis. The article first outlines the importance of continuous improvement and updating of network monitoring capabilities and protection schemes in power system operation, and then introduces the process of Colombia improving grid monitoring capabilities by introducing synchronous phasor measurement technology. The article also emphasizes inherent factors such as power system flexibility, frequency stability, and system inertia, as well as new challenges brought about by environmental issues and the introduction of variable resource generation technology. The article finally discusses how to maintain the integrity of the power system by improving its monitoring and protection schemes.

Response 1: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating our work. Your insights are invaluable, and we are grateful for your kind comments and suggestions.

We have made several modifications to the manuscript to enhance understanding and improve the quality of the English. Additionally, we have improved the analysis of the state of the art and revised the abstract, Section 1, and conclusions to better highlight the contributions of our paper.

Regarding the new challenges such as system inertia, we have added details in Section 5.2 about mitigation methods that can be used with the developed application to monitor RoCoF.

The most relevant sections added during this review are highlighted in the corrected article document in .pdf.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper covers the integration of tools for real-time dynamics monitoring and their potential applications in grid reliability, but it lacks some points.

 The abstract should be rewritten in a way such that key achievements and their real-world impact is elaborated.

  Comparative analysis showing improvements over traditional systems is needed.

    The paper language needs to be improved as it contains long, complex sentences that may hinder comprehension for readers.

  More diagrams and/or tables where appropriate could enhance understanding of the paper as it is not that clear.

  While the applications are described theoretically, specific case studies or examples of system performance are needed to strengthen the proposed work.

     The paper talks about regulatory issues and inertia challenges but does not give detailed mitigation methods. You need to talk more about that.

     A detailed discussion on data validation processes or faulty handling data inputs is needed to show the importance of the work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper covers the integration of tools for real-time dynamics monitoring and their potential applications in grid reliability, but it lacks some points.

 The abstract should be rewritten in a way such that key achievements and their real-world impact is elaborated.

    Comparative analysis showing improvements over traditional systems is needed.

    The paper language needs to be improved as it contains long, complex sentences that may hinder comprehension for readers.

   More diagrams and/or tables where appropriate could enhance understanding of the paper as it is not that clear.

   While the applications are described theoretically, specific case studies or examples of system performance are needed to strengthen the proposed work.

     The paper talks about regulatory issues and inertia challenges but does not give detailed mitigation methods. You need to talk more about that.

     A detailed discussion on data validation processes or faulty handling data inputs is needed to show the importance of the work.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper covers the integration of tools for real-time dynamics monitoring and their potential applications in grid reliability, but it lacks some points.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating our work. Your insights have been instrumental in refining and improving the quality of our paper.

Below, you will find a summary of the modifications made in response to your comments.

Comment 2: The abstract should be rewritten in a way such that key achievements and their real-world impact is elaborated.

Response 2: We have rewritten these sections to more effectively highlight the contributions of our work and the real-world impact of the developed applications.

Comment 3: Comparative analysis showing improvements over traditional systems is needed.

Response 3: We have added comparisons between WAMS and traditional SCADA in Table 2 of Section 3 – Network Details. It is important to note that WAMS is currently a complement to, rather than a replacement for, traditional SCADA systems. The benefits of WAMS are further detailed in Table 1 of Section 1.

Comment 4: The paper language needs to be improved as it contains long, complex sentences that may hinder comprehension for readers.

Response 4: We have made several modifications throughout the manuscript to enhance clarity and improve the quality of the English.

Comment 5: More diagrams and/or tables where appropriate could enhance understanding of the paper as it is not that clear.

Response 5: We have added new tables (Table 1 in Section 1 and Table 2 in Section 3) to highlight important details of the paper. Additionally, Figure 1 in Section 2 has been enhanced to better depict some of the components of the manufactured PMUs.

Comment 6: While the applications are described theoretically, specific case studies or examples of system performance are needed to strengthen the proposed work.

Response 6: We have detailed how each application is used in the control center and how decision-making and improvements in power system performance can be achieved using the developed applications. These improvements are detailed in each subsection of Section 5. Section 3 also provides additional details about data and network latency to complement information on system performance.

Comment 7: The paper talks about regulatory issues and inertia challenges but does not give detailed mitigation methods. You need to talk more about that.

Response 7: We have added details in Section 5.2 about mitigation methods and technologies that can be used with the developed application to monitor RoCoF across different operational time horizons.

Comment 8: A detailed discussion on data validation processes or faulty handling data inputs is needed to show the importance of the work.

Response 8: A new paragraph has been added under Section 4 – Data Management, describing the tools used to assess faulty data. This includes model calibration with post-operative data comparison from multiple sources and the device’s own flags to detect poor quality measurements.

The most relevant sections added during this review are highlighted in the corrected article document in .pdf.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the authors have properly addressed the comments. The manuscript can be accepted in current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvements of English language are possible. My suggestion is that native English speaker checks the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1: In my opinion, the authors have properly addressed the comments. The manuscript can be accepted in current form.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your thorough review and valuable comments. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made several revisions throughout the document to enhance the clarity, grammar, and overall presentation. We appreciate your time and effort in helping to improve this article.

Comment 2: Minor improvements of English language are possible. My suggestion is that native English speaker checks the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made several changes throughout the document, including all sections, to improve the grammar, usage of English, and the complexity and order of the paragraphs. We believe these revisions have significantly enhanced the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some citations may be outdated and the latest research results can be appropriately supplemented, especially the international cutting-edge discussions on WAMS technology.

Author Response

Comment 1: Some citations may be outdated and the latest research results can be appropriately supplemented, especially the international cutting-edge discussions on WAMS technology.

Response 1 Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your thorough review and valuable comments. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have updated several references with more recent documents on WAMS technology and added new references to expand the analysis of the state of the art. These updates ensure that our manuscript reflects the latest research and international cutting-edge discussions on WAMS technology.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept after checking English grammar

Author Response

Comment 1: Accept after checking English gramar

Response 1: Thank you very much for your thorough review and valuable comments. We also appreciate your suggestion to improve the English grammar. We have made several changes throughout the document, including all sections, to enhance the grammar, usage of English, and the complexity and order of the paragraphs. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript.